ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Development of a scoring system based on a nomogram to identify malignant pleural effusion.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a diagnostic model for malignant pleural effusion based on random forest.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE), a grave complication in advanced malignant tumors, indicates poor clinical outcomes. Timely diagnosis of MPE is of great significance, yet presents a clinical challenge. This study aimed to develop a scoring system based on a nomogram to distinguish MPE from benign pleural effusion (BPE). Methods: This single-center, retrospective study enrolled 382 patients with pleural effusion (PE) who underwent diagnostic thoracic puncture in Peking Union Medical College Hospital from December 2012 to May 2022. All participants were randomly divided into a training set (n=268) and a validation set (n=114) at a 7:3 ratio for predictive model development and internal validation. The nomogram model was established using the informative indexes screened by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and multivariate logistic regression. A scoring system based on this nomogram model was constructed to distinguish MPE from BPE. Results: The scoring system included: no fever (7 points), age/effusion adenosine deaminase (ADA) >2.5 (5 points), effusion/serum total protein (TP) ratio >0.5 (6 points), serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)/effusion ADA ratio [cancer ratio (CR)] >11.8 (8 points), effusion carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) >3.6 ng/mL (10 points), and effusion LDH >154 U/L (7 points). The score showed favorable diagnostic performance in the training set [area under the curve (AUC) =0.961; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.941-0.981], and the internal validation set (AUC =0.872; 95% CI: 0.803-0.942). At the optimal cutoff value of 28 points, the specificity and sensitivity for identifying MPE in the training set were 85.3% and 93.2%. In the internal verification set, they were 87.5% and 80.0%, respectively. The score also showed good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating MPE caused by lung cancer from BPE (training set: AUC =0.984; 95% CI: 0.971-0.998; validation set: AUC =0.914; 95% CI: 0.845-0.984). Besides, this scoring system outperformed conventional single tumor biomarkers in identifying cytologically suspected or negative malignant effusions (AUC =0.879; 95% CI: 0.812-0.945). Conclusions: The combination of multiple tumor markers demonstrated potential diagnostic value for MPE identification. To further improve the cost-effectiveness and applicability, we developed a simple scoring system involving six easily accessible clinical variables, which exhibited good diagnostic performance and clinical applicability for identifying MPE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.